December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

anon remailer
by luc pac 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

hi -- i'm having a discussion with some people, trying to persuade them to set up an anonymous remailer on an italian server. i need a few technical data about how much computing resources does a remailer take, how much ram, cpu time, average traffic and so. since i can't deal with the huge (though interesting) traffic carried by this list, i'm not going to subscribe. so please if you can help, contact me privately at my address. i feel that if i succeed, a new remailer would be of some help for the entire cypherpunk community worldwide. thanks. --- Key fngrprnt (since 1993) = 52 DB 96 92 FA 1D CE 71 0D 63 96 E5 9A 9B 07 0A http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/3879

2 1

Re: Kriegsman Furs Website hacked...
by Steve Edwards 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

These hacks can be amusing, regardless of your political orientation... But, to bring the thread onto topic, how are these hacks perpetrated and how can a responsible webmaster reduce the exposure? On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Eraser wrote: > > Hey all.. > > Another commercial hack. > > http://www.kriegsman.com/ which is still live at this posting. not any more. > if it goes down, or is fixed, a mirror exists on > http://www.skeeve.net/kriegsman/ > > nicely done... > > one for the furry creatures. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > | Skeeve Stevens - MyInternet personal.url: http://www.skeeve.net/ | > | email://skeeve@skeeve.net/ work.url: http://www.myinternet.net/ | > | phone://612.9869.3334/ mobile://0414.SKEEVE/ [753-383] | > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Steve Edwards sedwards(a)cts.com

1 0

Taxation Thought Experiment
by Joseph M. Reagle Jr. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Another thought experiment, comments welcomed: o TAXES THOUGHT EXPERIMENT 1) I generate $100 of productivity for my company 2) Company is taxed %30, $70 left 3) Company pay shareholders and costs, $30 is left 4) Company pays me 5) I pay 40% in taxes, so $18 left 6) With $18 I can buy a $16.82 object (%07 sales tax). Results: 1) I see $16.82 realization from $100 productivity increase. * Govt. gets $49.26 of my productivity, or nearly 3 times the amount I get. _______________________ Regards, Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. -Ralph Waldo Emerson Joseph Reagle http://rpcp.mit.edu/~reagle/home.html reagle(a)mit.edu E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E

6 9

(fwd) NSA And Vince Foster?
by vznuri＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

gadzooks, has anyone seen this yet? atom bomb type stuff here. I guess we won't hear Perry and others rant about Vince Foster material on the list any more, eh? From: softwar(a)us.net (Charles R. Smith) Newsgroups: talk.politics.crypto Subject: NSA And Vince Foster? Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 00:36:45 GMT ======== ubject: NSA FOSTER DOCS: FOSTER INVOLVED IN NSA COMPUTER ESPIONAGE ISSUES From: "John Q. Public" <jqp(a)globaldialog.com> Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 13:13:29 -0600 not to be used for commercial purposes from the Nov. 11, 1996 issue of The Washington Weekly posted with permission NSA RELEASES DECLASSIFIED FOSTER DOCUMENTS The National Security Agency has now released the first batch of documents in response to a Washington Weekly FOIA request filed in August of 1995. The documents, pertaining to the late Vincent W. Foster and his work with the NSA and with Systematics Inc. have many passages and names blacked out and some documents bear "Confidential" or "Secret" classifications. The first batch of documents contain 77 pages. After conversations with NSA staff, we understand that an additional estimated 600 to 700 pages of documents will be released pending review by other intelligence agencies. The Washington Weekly eventually will make all documents available on its web site. VINCE FOSTER INVOLVED IN NSA COMPUTER ESPIONAGE ISSUES One morning in May of 1993, a mini bus left the National Security Agency at Ft. George G. Meade, Maryland. It drove directly to the White House to pick up Bernard Nussbaum and Vincent W. Foster. From there, the party proceeded to the Justice Department to pick up Webster Hubbell and John Rogovin. At the Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens joined the party. They all returned to the NSA for a secret roundtable discussion with top NSA officials on Codebreaking and Telecommunications. On the agenda were items such as: * What Has Happened to SIGINT * How We Handle Crypt[ology] Problems * Problems We Face In The Future * Rule of Law Only this broad outline of the meeting is revealed in a recently declassified NSA document. But it makes clear that one of Vince Foster's responsibilities at the White House was cryptology and intelligence gathering. As such, he was privy to top secrets. That would explain the presence of two NSA binders deposited by Vince Foster in a White House safe. So why did the White House deny that Foster was working on NSA documents? Last May, White House spokesman Mark Fabiani told the Washington Times that "There were no National Security Agency documents that he was working on that were in his possession." Why did the White House try to conceal Foster's NSA ties? Why did Fabiani find it necessary to contradict the sworn statement of Foster's secretary Deborah Gorham, who said that "There were two one-inch ring binders that were from the National Security Agency"? Published in the Nov. 11, 1996 Issue of The Washington Weekly Copyright (c) 1996 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com) -- ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ \ / ~/ |\| | | |> | : : : : : : Vladimir Z. Nuri : : : : <vznuri(a)netcom.com> \/ ./_.| | \_/ |\ | : : : : : : ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/vz/vznuri/home.html

2 1

UNSUBCRIBE CENSORSHIP
by Sheldon Andrews 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

UNSUBCRIBE CENSORSHIP

4 3

Re: Child Protective Services and Political Views
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:26 AM 11/12/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >Who knows, it may even be a >technical crime ("contributing to the delinquency of a minor"?) to even >discuss basic libertarian ideas with a minor. And as I said, Child >Protective Services could quite possibly seize a child whose parents were >sufficiently vocal about their beliefs.) One shouldn't be vocal to public employees in any case. Avoid them. If you are going to be vocal use a non government forum. Separate your personal life from your political life. It's not too hard to break most of the pointers between your physical presence and your ideological presence. Even though an investigator could find where I sleep at night, they would have to actually expend the resources. My neighbors and the local cops are unlikely to make the connection because they and I move in very different circles and I minimize my database presence. In any case, those stupid enough to turn their children over to the government deserve whatever happens to them. Even if CPS never gets involved, the damage they do to their kids may be irreversible. My parents weren't that stupid in 1956 when I started school and that was at a much lower level of knowledge of the effects of government schools. There is no excuse today when we can see the damage all around us. As I said earlier today, you can reduce your risk of CPS oppression to nil by keeping your kids out of public schools and licensed day care. DCF

2 1

Mac S/WAN (encrypted ip) mailing list..
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Sender: mac-crypto(a)thumper.vmeng.com Reply-To: Vinnie Moscaritolo <vinnie(a)webstuff.apple.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: Bulk Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 12:13:16 -0800 From: Vinnie Moscaritolo <vinnie(a)webstuff.apple.com> To: Multiple recipients of <mac-crypto(a)thumper.vmeng.com> Subject: Mac S/WAN (encrypted ip) mailing list.. hi; as promised I have create a mailing list that will be focused on developing secure networking technology on the Macintosh. (ipsec,SKIP & OT etc) there are aleady a variety of ways todo this sucessfully with opentransport that involve createing a STREAMS modules to do ipsec. I will refer you to http://www.cygnus.com/~gnu/swan.html for more info about a great project that is underway that could really use a Mac implementation. for now , it will be an open list, you can subscribe to it by Send mail to mailto:majordomo@thumper.vmeng.com containing the single text line subscribe mac-swan Expect to receive confirmation when the majordomo daemon handles on your request. to contibrute to this list send email to mailto:mac-swan@thumper.vmeng.com Vinnie Moscaritolo ------------------ "friends come and friends go..but enemies accumulate." http://www.vmeng.com/vinnie/ Fingerprint: 4FA3298150E404F2782501876EA2146A --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "The cost of anything is the foregone alternative" -- Walter Johnson The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/

2 1

Supreme Court rules against FCC, MCI, AT&T
by Pzbowen＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Supreme Court Rejects FCC Phone Rule Request WASHINGTON (Reuter) - The Supreme Court Tuesday declined a request by federal regulators and long-distance phone companies to reactivate landmark rules intended to pry open the nation's local phone monopolies to competition. The denial means key terms and conditions for deregulating the $100 billion local phone market will for now depend on the decisions of state regulators in the 50 states -- instead of on uniform rules issued by the Federal Communications Commission. It is a defeat for the FCC and long-distance giants AT&T Corp. and MCI Communications Corp. They sought to reinstate the FCC's "interconnection" order after a U.S. appeals court suspended key provisions pending a challenge to the rules, and Supreme Court Justice Thomas declined to restore them. It is a victory for the Baby Bell companies, GTE Corp., other local carriers and state regulators who are seeking to overturn the regulations in the St. Louis-based appeals court. They argue the FCC unfairly snatched away from the states the power to issue policies governing pricing and other matters. The rules spell out how long-distance companies, cable-TV operators, utilities and others wanting to get into the local phone business can plug into the local network under the new telecommunications law. "For all practical purposes the state have complete control over the prices new entrants will pay to share the existing telephone networks during the critical period when competition is supposed to begin in local telephone markets," FCC Chairman Reed Hundt said after the high court's denial. The appeals court temporarily suspended the rules last month, saying the FCC probably erred when it drafted them. On Oct. 31, Justice Thomas declined a request by the FCC and its long-distance allies to lift the lower court's "stay." They separately asked Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and John Paul Stevens to reconsider the request. The justices referred the matter to the entire court. "The stay prevents grossly arbitrary and distored pricing rules from going into effect and ruining the whole process," said GTE General Counsel William Barr. "It does not delay the timetable set forth in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 for the introduction of competition, but instead allows for a more level playing field." Oral arguments in the St. Louis case are set for January. FCC Chairman Hundt conceded Friday it was unlikely the appeals court would decide in favor of the FCC. And he doubts the rules will be put into effect for at least 1 1/2 years, if ever, while they are fought over in the courts. Hundt was encouraged, however, by the actions of state regulators arbitrating interconnection agreements between the Bells and their long-distance rivals. He said key provisions to the arbitration decisions issued so far are similar to the suspended FCC rules. Iowa, Texas, Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania have been among the states that have issued decisions that will lay the groundwork for arbitrated agreements between the Bells and AT&T, MCI and No. 3 long-distance company Sprint Corp. "There hasn't been any evidence that the states are going off and doing any wild and crazy stuff," said analyst Robert Mayer of Deloitte & Touche Consulting Group.

1 0

Re: New Linux-IPSEC mailing list for the S/WAN project
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk writes: > > > Yeah, right. Be sure to ask Paul Bradley to implement his brute force > > attack on one-time pads. :-) > > I retracted this and as I explained the post was in error as I was > talking about stream ciphers when I should have been taking about > OTPs. Please read a little deeper into my post asshole. I've got more interesting things to do than read "deeper" into your ignorant drivel. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

3 2

linux ipsec question
by Alex Strasheim 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've been off the list for quite awhile, so if this has been beat to death already, I apologize. Is there any kind of consensus of opinion on the linux-ipsec project? What do people outside of the project think about it? It seems like a very good thing to me, but I don't know much about s/wan, so my opinion isn't worth much. I'm a little curious as to how this project fits in with other secure IP efforts. Will the linux-ipsec software interoperate with other packages? How does it relate to IPv6? Policymaker? Basically, I'm not very clear about the significance of this project. Is it going to be a good package that I could use to encrypt traffic between offices in NY and LA, or is it going to be a package that will let me communicate securely with the net at large, using a well accepted standard? Finally, what do you all think about the basic way this is set up? I mean, does it make sense to use a linux box with two net cards to protect a lan? Or should secip software be built into individual devices, like it is in IPv6? Is this a standard that might get picked up by someone like cisco? Etc. Thanks... -- Alex Strasheim, alex(a)proust.suba.com

2 1